BoxRec

What do you think Earnie Shavers legacy should be in professional boxings heavyweight division?


Do you think that Earnie should rank somewhere in the top 20?


Why?



Do you think that Shavers should rank somewhere in the top 15?


Why?




Or, do you think that Earnie Shavers should rank somewhere in the top 10?



If so, why?



Please explain.

My favorite fighter.He was a blast to watch.But he is no where near top 10 or even top 15.

Big puncher but not top 20, often lost when it mattered.

Shavers maybe has a claim to being division's biggest puncher of all time but probably only in top 30 at best,ability wise

I don't rate Shavers in my top 20 at all.

Don't get me wrong, I loved watching the guy (who didn't?), but he's not top 20 material.

He could knock down buildings, but he wasn't a great fighter.

Just being a top 10 puncher does not qualify as one of the greatest boxers.

Nor would having a top 10 defense

Or top 10 endurance.

Or a top 10 strategist.

Or top 10 in talent alone.


You have to have pretty much every aspect of the game at a high level to be in the elite.


Ernie was missing most of the rest of the resume.

yeah, he's not at all rated very high. look what quarry did to him. he could hit but he failed miserably when there was something on the line, maybe in the lower 30s.

On all-time ability I would imagine there are 100 other heavies out there who could have beaten him. Great puncher though.

polecateddy wrote:On all-time ability I would imagine there are 100 other heavies out there who could have beaten him. Great puncher though.

I agree.There are at least 100 better heavyweights.But admit it guys he was fun to watch.

Certainly he wasn't Top 20, but he certainly was Top 100.
Yes he had some bad losses, but some of his losses were to really good or great fighters. He had too many nice wins not to be in the Top 100.
Being the hardest hitting puncher of all time and have a high work rate gets you pretty far. His stamina and chin were not that bad. There are heavyweight champions (not just WBS titlists) that he was better than.

Arguably > Wlad, definitively > Vitali.

tiny_acres wrote:

polecateddy wrote:On all-time ability I would imagine there are 100 other heavies out there who could have beaten him. Great puncher though.

I agree.There are at least 100 better heavyweights.But admit it guys he was fun to watch.

Resume wise?

Wow, some people are being overly hard on the Acorn. Not a top 20 guy, but one could easily make a case for the top #40-50. His top 3 wins over Jimmy Young, Jimmy Ellis, and Ken Norton are very solid, and one could easily argue he drawed with Ali when they fought. Plus he has wins over good heavyweights like Roy Williams, Howard Smith, and Henry Clark. Came very close to axing both Ron Lyle and Larry Holmes.

In fact, if he'd retired after the second Holmes fight, his record is superior to both K brothers. Stander was better than Purrity, Quarry much better than Sanders, and Lyle much better than Brewster. Then you have the Stallings loss, but on the flipside Shavers has much better Ws.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

tiny_acres wrote:

polecateddy wrote:On all-time ability I would imagine there are 100 other heavies out there who could have beaten him. Great puncher though.

I agree.There are at least 100 better heavyweights.But admit it guys he was fun to watch.

Resume wise?

Not opportunity wise but there are 100 heavies who would have beaten him.

Anyone he buries that right hand in, they are liable to go. Plus he had that dynamite left hook coming behind the overhand right, and his uppercut on the inside was deadly. The stamina problem I think is overdone. Went 10 and pulled out the KO over Tiger Williams, a giant brute, did 15 tough ones with Ali, went 12 at a pace with a dazzling Holmes. By the rematch with Holmes he was 35 and just going over the hill, boxing with one eye.

Still pulled out some stunners long after that, breaking the iron chin of Bugner, putting Tillis facedown etc.

Very few heavyweight champs in history would have roused from that shot he dropped Holmes with. The Acorn had the misfortune of fighting a man with astounding recuperative powers, which Holmes demonstrated throughout his career.

I rate Shavers very highly, he has a chance with just about anyone.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

tiny_acres wrote:

polecateddy wrote:On all-time ability I would imagine there are 100 other heavies out there who could have beaten him. Great puncher though.

I agree.There are at least 100 better heavyweights.But admit it guys he was fun to watch.

Resume wise?

No one has questioned his resume.We both stated that there are 100 heavyweights that could of beaten him.
Nothing wrong with that.He had an awesome career.And was one of the most entertaining heavyweights ever.

dempseyfire wrote:Wow, some people are being overly hard on the Acorn. Not a top 20 guy, but one could easily make a case for the top #40-50. His top 3 wins over Jimmy Young, Jimmy Ellis, and Ken Norton are very solid, and one could easily argue he drawed with Ali when they fought. Plus he has wins over good heavyweights like Roy Williams, Howard Smith, and Henry Clark. Came very close to axing both Ron Lyle and Larry Holmes.

In fact, if he'd retired after the second Holmes fight, his record is superior to both K brothers. Stander was better than Purrity, Quarry much better than Sanders, and Lyle much better than Brewster. Then you have the Stallings loss, but on the flipside Shavers has much better Ws.

When he beat Young... poor Jimmy had only a handful of fights... in their rematch, it was a draw, and Jimmy was still a novice who hadn't reached his prime.

Young had 10 fights and had been a pro for 3 years going into the first Shavers fight
Young had 18 fights and had been a pro for 5 years going into the 2nd Shavers.

You want to say that Young was too inexperienced fair enough; at least for the first one.
However, another thread you don't care that Foreman was only in his 4th fight and a pro for 2 months when he fought Wepner.
You can't have it both ways.

tiny_acres said "No one has questioned his resume.We both stated that there are 100 heavyweights that could of beaten him.
Nothing wrong with that.He had an awesome career.And was one of the most entertaining heavyweights ever."

I don't understand this. If he had an awesome career, than he should be in the top 100. There certainly were not 100 other heavyweights who had an "awesome career".

I would love to see a list someone has of 100 heavyweights that were better.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Young had 10 fights and had been a pro for 3 years going into the first Shavers fight
Young had 18 fights and had been a pro for 5 years going into the 2nd Shavers.

You want to say that Young was too inexperienced fair enough; at least for the first one.
However, another thread you don't care that Foreman was only in his 4th fight and a pro for 2 months when he fought Wepner.
You can't have it both ways.

Best to my knowledge, though, Young wasn't considered a real prospect or threat to anyone--- unlike Foreman. George had the credentials as a medalist going into turning pro. Young, not so much. From 1969-1974 he had a record of 13-4-2 (3) and the only good win he had during that time was against Richard Dunn. Not saying that is a 'bad' win or anything, but goes to show just how far down the pipe he was in comparison to others at that time.

I will give him credit, though, for having a not so impressive record going into 1975 he was able to defeat the likes of Ron Lyle, which got him his title shot with Ali. But if there ever was a man, going into a world title fight, with a less impressive record (in terms of numbers) I can't really think of one. After all, this is the same Young who lost to regional heavyweight Randy Neumann. I will say, though, I do believe whole heartedly Young did beat Ali in '76. Which also goes to show, in my view, just how far gone Ali was at that time.

Mike Weaver!

Nah.. Not a top 20 and probably not even top 50. Good fighter and very exciting to watch with some decent wins and galant losing efforts, but his resume doesn't bolster a very high rating.

HomicideHenry wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Young had 10 fights and had been a pro for 3 years going into the first Shavers fight
Young had 18 fights and had been a pro for 5 years going into the 2nd Shavers.

You want to say that Young was too inexperienced fair enough; at least for the first one.
However, another thread you don't care that Foreman was only in his 4th fight and a pro for 2 months when he fought Wepner.
You can't have it both ways.

Best to my knowledge, though, Young wasn't considered a real prospect or threat to anyone--- unlike Foreman. George had the credentials as a medalist going into turning pro. Young, not so much. From 1969-1974 he had a record of 13-4-2 (3) and the only good win he had during that time was against Richard Dunn. Not saying that is a 'bad' win or anything, but goes to show just how far down the pipe he was in comparison to others at that time.

I will give him credit, though, for having a not so impressive record going into 1975 he was able to defeat the likes of Ron Lyle, which got him his title shot with Ali. But if there ever was a man, going into a world title fight, with a less impressive record (in terms of numbers) I can't really think of one. After all, this is the same Young who lost to regional heavyweight Randy Neumann. I will say, though, I do believe whole heartedly Young did beat Ali in '76. Which also goes to show, in my view, just how far gone Ali was at that time.

Foreman a very brief amateur career. He was very inexperienced after 3 pro fights against tomato cans.
Young was thrown to the wolves and fought very tough competition very early in his career.
Young was a much more experienced fighter after 18 pro fights than Foreman was after 3. He was also a better fighter after 18 fights than Foreman was after 3.
If you want to discuss Young-Ali for the millionth time, start a new thread about it. It has nothing to do with Earnie Shavers' legacy.

Every division in every era needs a Shavers. Guys like him are what the sport is all about.

Earnie Shavers is one of the greatest punchers that ever lived. He definately is not a top 20, but, I could see him in the top 35 or top 40. I cannot see 100 heavyweights better than he.....NO WAY!